Actually, the opinion is pretty short and I'd recommend reading it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opin

Actually, the opinion is pretty short and I'd recommend reading it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf The long story short is that the plaintiff had not actually been arrested, so he hadn't been read his Miranda rights, and then his silence was used against him in court when he went silent after certain questions. This opinion says that the 5th is not simply a "right to remain silent", nor is that phrase even in the 5th. If he wanted to claim his rights, he needed to explicitly say so. That's not new, but this case reiterates that point in non-arrest situations.